![]() And, unless it’s hidden away, it may not be that attractive. The setup will take up space, more space than the standard standalone scanner. It’s a bit like the home-brew PC culture of yore. There is a downside – cost in space, $ € ¥ £, time. Scanning with a digital camera sounds appealing: “I’ll save money and get better results.” But… There’s always a but. While there is much interest in scanning with a digital camera, there are other ways of scanning negatives: using a lab or home-scanning with a dedicated scanner. Thanks, Hamish… now, over to Marco:įeatured image movie still from Modern Times, Charlie Chaplin (Platinum-toned remix of United Artists, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.) in favour of camera scanning – then please read this article. ![]() Finally, if you wish to read an article that makes the opposing argument – ie. Please also note, we are only talking about photography here, if this makes you angry, then it might be worth taking a step back. If you wish to discuss the pros and cons from your own perspective in the comments, then please feel free, but please refrain from just stating the author to be “wrong” as this adds nothing to the conversation. ![]() This article simply aims to highlight some of the perceived issues from both a technical (theory-based) perspective, and from a practical (subjective) perspective. There is no one answer to the problem of digitising film. The purpose of this article – or at least why I chose to approve it for publication – was to encourage the discussion. Preface: This article seems to have caused a few raised eyebrows, and in some cases heated responses that amount to the idea that the author of this article is “wrong”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |